Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Jesus and the socio-sexual hiearchy

AF has an interesting take on how Jesus Christ's life can be related to each of the various ranks and suggests how the ideal Christian version of that rank might be exhibited. Please note that I did not write this, nor do I agree with all of it, but I think it provides an enlightened vision of how the Game-aware Christian can better understand both his place in the world's hierarchy and his Christian duty to be in, but not of, the world.The Redeemed Societal Ranks of Men

The societal or sociosexual ranks of men, namely alpha, beta, delta, gamma, sigma, and omega, are in themselves nonmoral aspects of men. Although we place societal value on each, since a man does not fully choose his rank but is subject to it by nature, he cannot be morally judged on account of it. Like the sexes, each one has its own peculiar strengths and weaknesses that must actively be cultivated or suppressed.

Naturally, every man falls and is dragged into sin, and normally into the sins of his rank. But in Christ a man is redeemed, and redeemed according to the godly aspects of his own nature. The question posed is what redemption looks like in each rank, what a man in Christ ought to strive for in the knowledge of his placement in the Body. A sinful gamma will not be a redeemed alpha male in the church, but will be a redeemed gamma who will fulfill his role and his own manliness as it is reflected in Jesus Christ.

As we believe Jesus is fully God and fully Man, I also believe him to have fully exhibited the redeemed traits of every rank of men. In the Teacher we each see our own place in his Kingdom and our own wavelength of light to the world, forming together as his Body now on earth the same pure light that shone through his flesh many years ago.

α: Christ was the alpha male when he overturned the tables in the Temple and drove out his enemies with a whip. He as the alpha male when he rebuked the Pharisees to their face in public, demolishing their power and credibility in the most humiliating way possible.

The glory of the alpha male, redeemed, is the power he exerts over immoral and weak leaders. When he asserts his dominance over the corrupt he brings justice to the world as no other can, and he provides upright leadership and inspiration that other men and women thirst for without even realizing it. The alpha has the power and energy to inspire in his followers the best of themselves for his cause.

β: Christ was a beta when he claimed two witnesses to validate his judgments, including himself. “If I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father.” His fanatical loyalty to the Alpha God, and his supreme confidence in their solidarity, left crowds breathless as he walked through them untouched, though they were full of enemies. He was beta when he planted his feet before heaven and irrevocably declared, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” He possessed the absurd confidence of the wingman of the Almighty, and when it was time, he followed his Alpha to the death. The bond between Jesus and the Father was beyond unbreakable; it was even beyond comprehension. He did exactly what the Father desired him to do, and the Father glorified him above every creature and every power in heaven and on earth.

The glory of the beta is the unshakable confidence that comes from his loyalty to God and to a godly alpha. His self assurance makes his team seem impenetrable from the outside, and he is a credit to the faith he espouses. He is the right man to have around when someone is spouting insolence toward God or toward a fellow Christian. He is a defender and an encourager, a Barnabas, who perpetuates the divine spark among men and fuels the Spirit’s fire. He draws out of men the best that is in themselves, and in so doing exhibits the best in himself.

δ: Christ was a delta when he turned away the stones from the adulteress, when he comforted as a daughter the woman who touched his cloak, when he lifted Mary from her wretched state into his blessed ministry, and when through her he unveiled the secret hidden through all ages, his resurrection from the dead, to the world.

The glory of the delta, the White Knight, is to find in a humble woman the beauty she can become, and through his vision of her lead her through a transformation. She, no matter what wretched state or rank of women she inhabits in the world, becomes in his eyes a daughter of the King, and the true potential that lies in her can be realized in Christ.

γ: Christ was a gamma when he declared his Kingdom not of this world, the one true Secret King. He knew what power lay in himself, while the world only saw his ordinary flesh from a mundane family of some small town. He hinted at his origins and his authority, but shunned the crown and the worship, and would not even stand to be called “good.” Ten thousand legions of angels at his command, he died without unleashing his power, and in his restraint he revealed a power even greater than was ever imagined, the power of humility to redeem the world.

The glory of the gamma is to embrace the humility of his low status in the flesh, even knowing the power of God that inhabits him through Christ. He is content to be recognized by God and hated by the world, thus storing up treasure in heaven. He rises to the challenge among men only when the occasion absolutely demands it, and then returns to his humble state. It is his restraint that allows other men receive their glory and teaches them the humility to temper it.

σ: Christ was a sigma when he ditched the crowds and his own apostles, and appeared later like a ghost on the stormy sea, walking on the water without a care in the world. He was pure sigma when his brothers dared him to appear in Jerusalem to challenge the Pharisees and he declined, humiliating them in their cozy unbelief, then showing up anyways to change the world when he invited all who are thirsty to come to him and drink. Jesus was a sigma when he prayed alone in Gethsemane, and spat at his disciples for falling asleep in the midst of battle. Sigma was his most consistent role; he was a complete mystery to all around him, a wild card who played by his own rules and beat the world at its own game, even in death.

The glory of the sigma, the loner, the wild card, when truly redeemed, is to leave the world alone in order to pray. When he seeks God alone he attains wisdom and strength that other men do not understand. He is a visionary unbound by the limits of culture and societal status, thus his words have an unexpected depth that command attention. His strength does not come from his social standing but emanates from his experiences with God. In this way he fulfills a priestly role.

ω: Christ was an omega when he died on the cross. Denied by God the cup to pass from him, he endured the show trial, the humiliating slap, the utter torture of the flail tearing his flesh apart piece by piece. He wore the purple robe, felt the pricks on his brow from the crown of thorns, heard his enemies worship him with mockery dripping from their tongues. He carried his own cross. The entire world turned its back on him, even those closest to him; they denied his name like it was a plague. The crowd embraced a rioter and a murderer over him. Uplifted on the cross to the lowest state attainable by a man, marred beyond the appearance of a man, he looked down on the world with mercy, and forgave it.

The glory of the omega is to receive his lot in life, the lowest of the low, and then extend to the world the hands of forgiveness. In this way he carries the heaviest burden, and also receives from God the most handsome reward. He also is rewarded in the church, the realm where the low are exalted, the weak are indispensable, and the unpresentable are treated with special modesty. The omega is honored by his low status in the world, and the community learns from him as from no other the power and blessing unleashed by washing his dirty feet, and the unexpected strength God can reveal in those the world has overlooked.

48 comments:

Time to repost this classic that is not online anymore (this is not by me).

THE ORIGINS OF GAME: JESUS

The attempt to trace the origins of Game are the most clear refutations of the pretentions of Game itself. Some have traced it to Jung, to Byron, to Shakespeare. Nope, way too shallow. Game was invented by Jesus. You think I'm joking? I'm not. Of course, it wasn't Game that Jesus taught, he taught us how to be men (the principles of positive masculinity), and how to deal with women. Read on:

Jesus, master of the neg (as recorded in Mark 7):Greek woman approaches Jesus, "Please heal my daughter." Jesus replies, "You are not worthy, you little dog." Jesus's neg gets the proper response too, leading the woman to grovel further: "Even the dogs get a scrap of bread." Happy with her full submission stated out loud, Jesus provides the requested healing.

Jesus, master of the alpha demand and validation (as recorded in John 4):Coming upon a strange woman at a well, Jesus starts off by straight up ordering her to fetch him a drink. The woman gives him a shit test, throwing up some religious bullshit excuse not to do it for him. Jesus responds by elevating his own status: "If you knew who was asking this request, you would do that and more, because I give the living water." The woman continues her shit test, asking him to prove it.

Jesus then negs the girl, shifting the subject, demanding "Where is your husband?" This begins to break her down, shifting the ground to her uncomfortable zone, as she admits she has no husband. Jesus drives the woman down even harder: "Darn right you don't have a husband, you are a little slut [five previous husbands, living with man currently]." The woman is totally owned by this, and sees to it that Jesus is fed and housed for the next couple days in her village.

Jesus refuses any woman's attempt to order him around, even his mother (recorded in John 2):Jesus is at a wedding party when his mother tells him, "We are out of wine." Jesus replies, and I quote, "Don't tell me what to do". His mom, being put in her place, then turns to the servants, and validates Jesus, to them, "Do what he tells you." Jesus then orders the servants about, and creates some high quality wine for the party.

Jesus, encouraging female servitude, part 1 (recorded in Luke 10):Martha was doing chores, Mary sitting at Jesus's feet hanging on his every word. Martha starts bitching about Mary not helping, and actually tells Jesus to tell Mary to get up and help. Jesus puts her in her place: "Martha, drop the negativity. Mary is doing the right thing."

Jesus, encouraging female servitude, part 2 (recorded in John 12):Martha was serving him supper, when Mary started cleaning Jesus' feet WITH HER HAIR. Not just with her hair, but using some seriously expensive oil to do the job right, filling the whole house with the scent.

His jealous beta Judas starts to object on religious grounds, so Jesus tells him to shut the F up, and he takes the opportunity for a high status display: "You will always have the poor with you, but you won't always have me."

Do I need to mention when Jesus beat up the sleazy Jewish bankers in the Temple? He pulled out a WHIP, and literally WHIPPED THEM out, knocked over their chairs, and kicked over their tables. Jesus was not a pacifist, as I have analyzed before (here). The night before his crucifixion he commanded his followers to carry swords for self-defense.

Jesus was a man's man, and it showed in the absolute devotion he inspired his women. Jesus had a number of women taking care of his financial needs, some even married. Luke (in chapter 8) records: Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Suzanna, and "many others" who supported him out of their own means. Jesus's women were broken down in hysterics seeing Jesus dying up on the cross, and they were the ones visiting him at his tomb after he died.

Christian teachings are clear: the man is the head of the household, and the woman is required to submit to her husband. Adam, the first man, was guilty of letting his wife lead him. A Christian man who allows his woman to be negative or domineering is failing to be a faithful Christian, failing to follow God's command and example.

This is not the case of running Game on your wife. This is the attitude of leadership and responsibility that comes from God's plan, rooted in human nature. To have a successful marriage, you don't need to "learn Game", you need to BE THE MAN.

It is not a set of techniques, it is an attitude of command. The principles of positive masculinity are based in the reality of human nature. You don't even have to be a Christian to see their validity, or understand how they were the foundation of our civilization.

Not coincidentally, returning to the principles of the revealed religion that undergirded Western Civilization is the key to our contemporary problems, not resporting to manipulative tricks based on the poisonous gaming of the contemporary dying culture.

I love this work as being in the two-thousand year old Christian tradition of taking some secular/philosophical model and then claiming it is exemplified in Christ.

I think that the beta and omega descriptions are the nicest. However, the alpha and gamma descriptions I'm less convinced by, though I don't think what I'm about to say is any better.

With the Alpha, Jesus was clearly an alpha in as much as disciples and the women followed Him and deferred to Him. But then I don't think that an alpha can simply forget the Christian command of humility. Perhaps in Christianity, and in many other philosophies, the alpha is in a way sublimated through beta-ness on a higher level: by claiming to represent some higher power, or to have been given authority from above, or some other such technique, the alpha avoids hubris. That is, all the people around look to him as their leader, while he himself is guided by something higher. To those around him he is alpha, but to God no one is.

Linking the gamma concept of the Secret King to Jesus is neat, but I'm thinking that this is the rank that in Christianity are supposed to become monastics. Monasticism is an official way to bypass the normal social system, and its harsh asceticism provides the gamma with a way to (a) overcome their character flaws and (b) become someone that can genuinely be admired, while constantly having to go further. Without monasticism they are forced to imagine themselves Napoleons, Newtons and Shakespeares, and, since they inevitably aren't, start self-destructing.

Just because Jesus was fully man, doesn't mean he exhibited all the characteristics of all men. He didn't have one blue eye and one brown. Because he is also fully God, as well as the king and leader of Israel he does show a distinctly alpha characteristic.

This theory above is akin to saying that there are only two types of people, extrovert and introvert and looking through the gospels to find incidents that display Jesus being both.

Jesus is obviously and solely an innate sigma. All authority is given to him, and he is outside the human social hierarchy. Moreover, his entire ministry on earth proved that he does not exhibit the standard alpha personality archetype.

There were only twelve he told "Follow me"; everyone else he told "Go away." Coming out of nowhere to whip the temple clean is pure sigma. Having all the local alphas attack you because they think you are a challenger for a position you don't even want is pure sigma. Shutting them down anyway without breaking a sweat is pure sigma.

This article teaches the false and pernicious notion that each rank possesses a virtue the others do not. In fact, the innate sigma/alpha has already mastered all the virtues of the ranks below him. That is why he has the right to lead.

There is already a name for someone who cannot accept defeat and diminishment gracefully: Gamma. As we saw with Ted Cruz, many innate gammas are thrust for a time into a position of situational authority, but they always show their true colors in the end.

Jesus Christ demonstrated that he could gracefully transition between every situational rank, because he is the ultimate Sigma.

I've pondered this topic a number of times before but came to a completely different conclusion. My current running theory is that the model of behavior that Christians are supposed to emulate, the kind of man that Christian men ought to become, are what are known as Betas on Vox's scale. (as an aside, is there a better description for that? Maybe "a Voxian Beta"?)

The reason for this are simple - we are called to be bold, yet humble. Generally we are called to be happy with the state we are at, yet be the best help we can to our master (the whole master/slave section, as evidence). In general, throughout the Bible we are called to be *servants* but not weak servants by any means.

Going by section: While there's some similarities with Omega only during the Passion, it was only then. And even then, the reason why he was suffering was due to a Beta reason - because God demanded it.

The problem with the Gamma section is just the amount of lying to the self that they have to do. This is in no way compatible with Christianity and God, who hates liars. And when the Gamma finally stops lying to himself, aka "to embrace the humility of his low status in the flesh", they stop being Gamma.

Delta: Not every Delta is a White Knight. And even then uplifting a woman isn't necessarily a White Knight trait - placing them on a pedestal which is a sin, is.

As for Beta and Alpha (You forgot Lambda, shame on you! :P), I'll have to think on that one. My first thought is that the example you gave for Alpha isn't necessarily an Alpha one.

The modern work of Satan is to get Christians to throw away the tools that God gave us by perverting them, keeping people too stupid to know how to use them correctly, and then convincing them to dispose of the tool entirely. In this fashion, Christians are trying to survive and struggle in the world while constantly disarming and handicapping themselves.

Feminism is one movement which seeks to end the distinction between men and women by using social methods to shift the locus of Earthly power from men to women. The traditional masculine traits, and even pragmatic realities like sexual dimorphism, are recast as being shameful or regrettable as opposed to laudable and true. Ego is conflated with arrogance. Strength is conflated with abuse. Passion conflated with instability.

Globalism is another tool which seeks to undermine traditional and practical realities by making various forms of "I can imagine a more interesting world than you" type arguments, as if imagination divorced from reality is an actual measure of progress. Things like Nationalism are put down, despite the OT being riddled with it, with many of God's commands reinforcing it for Israel. God hates Globalism, as seen from the Tower of Babel. Whenever humanity is united under our own banners and to our own glorification, God destroys that unity, and history is replete with godless empires rising and falling. Much like how God used the enemies of Israel to refine, judge, and give Israel opportunity to walk in obedience, God currently uses the enemies of his followers to shit-test them in the modern parlance.

SJWs exist because God needs Christian men to man-up and embrace their roles boldly. Young Earthers exist because Christians were retreating from scientific and philosophic endeavors, and God needs Christians who are intellectually engaged. Mormons exist because Christians are too often allured by vain moralism, as a works-based religion trying to claim itself as the "new standard for Christian purity" is catnip to those who do not know doctrine or theology.

God will not let "evils" be fully removed from this Earth until Judgment Day, because humanity keeps becoming recalcitrant and self-congratulatory every time an evil is defeated, as the OT showed with Israel over and over again. Each generation explores new avenues of rebellion against God, and the only way to correct this behavior is either to override Free Will, or to allow the evil to rise up until people return to God, and then people walking in obedience with God will be able to put down whatever current manifestation evil is taking for a time.

Jesus showed that having all the tools, and then choosing how to use them as circumstances merited, is the truest demonstration of power. Merely having the capacity to do great things is irrelevant if you don't know when and how to use that power, or even just when to withhold using it.

The socio-sexual hierarchy shows us how "the flesh" perverts men, and articles like this one which show that the same behavior patterns and internal motivations need not be toxic or detrimental to the individual or society as a whole, but that they can be redeemed to serve in a unique fashion in God's order.

In the same way that men and women are different, so too men are different from each other. We still are equally cherished and values by God, but that equality does not require that there be no distinctions in God's creations.

So do not throw away aspects of humanity which have been perverted from their true purpose. You throw away the work of God who put those attributes there on purpose.

“What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker?Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’" - Isaiah 45:9 (NLT)

I appreciate this adaptation. While I don't 100% agree with Mr. AF's take on - for instance - the best Alpha example (perhaps our Lord riding triumphantly into town on a donkey, or His future return as a Warrior King), I do think he redeems many positions we had thought "weak."

For instance, the Redeemer as Delta and Beta were quite beautiful descriptions.

@: The societal or sociosexual ranks of men, namely alpha, beta, delta, gamma, sigma, and omega, are in themselves nonmoral aspects of men._______

I debated a lady on a thread here a while back about this. She argued that alphas are virtuous because immoral behaviors were beneath them, and her evidence was an alpa told her so.

I told her any rank is capable of good and bad. She demanded to know why she should believe and not him. I told her only observation and common sense support me, but the hamster supports him... He's an alpha and female wishful thinking wants to believe their tingles are infallible.

Trying to pinpoint Jesus' rank when he didn't marry or date seems awfully weird. Just the same, Pastors often attract females even when they shouldn't. Coming into contract with women creates opportunities.

Our Lord was Alpha when he told St. Peter and the other apostles to "follow Me", and they did so, obeying him unquestioningly (except for Judas of course). As Peter put it, "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life!" His pull over women was Alpha. And He was Alpha because He repeatedly triggered the Pharisees into seething Gamma rage, which led to their plot to dispose of Him.

He was Beta only to His Father. Dying on the Cross was Beta, not Omega. "Not my will, but Thine be done."

I disagree with Leo that He was Sigma, because He had followers. Alpha saints spread the Faith. Sigma saints became the great hermits.

I'm very humbled by the interest and insightful comments here; I did have quite a bit of fun writing this essay.

Reinhard, I think that tradition started when Paul walked into Athens and proclaimed that their idol "to the unknown god" was actually the Creator of the universe, then quoted their pagan poetry to prove his point. It is a magnificent tradition that highlights the ability Christ had to meet people where they are and redeem them in a unique way.

Orville, I don't think Jesus was equally every rank, and I remarked offhand that he was primarily sigma. I do think every Christian man needs to see his primary aim as imitating Christ, and the disparate personalities in men each need clarity in seeing how to imitate him according to how he was made by God.

Student in Blue, I think the problem with the universally beta Christian is that just doesn't reflect reality. Men cannot will themselves to change rank for the most part, and I haven't observed that it is desirable they should do so. Paul was beyond the shadow of a doubt an alpha male. There was nothing non-alpha about him. Do you think he should have been more beta after his conversion? I also considered including lambda as those who renounce marriage for the Kingdom, but in the end I decided it was too weird. I'm still on the fence about it.

Aquila, I come from a Church of Christ background. I wish I could have lunch with you to hear your interpretation of the subtext in my writing.

#7634, the alpha section could have been more fleshed out, you are right. There are many examples available. I think by the time Jesus was on the cross, his status as a man on earth cannot be described as anything but omega. How do you get to a lower place than falsely accused, tortured, and rejected by your own followers? Also, the fact that Jesus kept leaving his disciples behind to go off into the wilderness shows his sigma side as a leader. Sigmas don't disappear from society, they win the social game without trying, without playing by the rules. They are natural leaders who don't always want to lead.

The problem with the "reflecting reality" diagnosis is that the original post was describing ways in which men of different socio-sexual ought to act, not how they are acting.

Men cannot will themselves to change rank for the most part? Based on what evidence? If the argument is that it's just extremely, extremely difficult to do so, then it should be "Men do not will themselves to change rank", and not "cannot".

And if we are talking about reflecting reality, the reality is that all men fail, fall short, and need the Savior. That is the "is". That does not logically affect what they "ought" to be, what the perfect man is.

Regarding Paul... in a very real sense after his conversion, he was more Beta. Would an Alpha write 1 Timothy 1:15? 1 Corinthians 15:9?

That's right, I think it is in line with reality that a delta man should become a godly delta man when he becomes a Christian, and should not be expected to change his personality to beta or any other rank that may seem more desirable.

You could not possibly be more wrong about Paul, my friend. Both scriptures you mentioned are pure alpha. Even when Paul is being humble, he has to be the MOST humble. The alpha male oozes out of every story of him in Acts and through every letter in which he refers to himself. His description of his own conversion in Galatians and his description of his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11 are perfect examples.

It is my perspective that Christ was never anything but Alpha (or Sigma - the two are distinct but very similar), as this is more a trait of inner being than external actions. Showing unwavering confidence is not a beta trait; white knighting is not an inherently delta trait (but more a beta and gamma trait); gammas are characterized by their absolute lack of humility; omegas do not have a great quest or purpose.

Instead, Christ came to earth with a divine quest and purpose (that is, to show God's Perfect Love). Every action he took was designed to move toward the fulfillment of that purpose, regardless of any opposition. Every person he defended, comforted, healed, or restored was done in the service of his purpose. Every person he attacked he attacked in service of his purpose (that is, to protect the sheep from the wolves). When he spoke of the True King and the True Kingdom, he did so to reveal his quest instead of protect himself from criticism. In the garden, he showed the only moment of wavering in his conviction (which even the most powerful Alpha must experience from time to time). From arrest to death, he suffered all things for the ultimate completion of his quest.

All this said, I think you have identified those things which each kind of mindset requires. Alphas need to put their natural dominance and strength to noble purposes, leading others to better themselves and their society. Betas need to be confident, purposeful defenders of others and servants of good leaders. Gammas need true humility so that they might come to know truth of themselves and how they might become more than they are. Deltas need to turn their loyalty toward protecting and improving those they cherish. Omegas need to embrace service and learning, transforming their social lacks into strengths.

Look at your name and the author of this site and think about that statement.

@LeoReal life is quite different from and a lot harder and more complicated than online. Even an Omega can put together a troupe in an MMORPG. It would make total sense that VD would be more comfortable in a leadership role online than IRL.

Sigma saints would be hermits, maybe run monasteries, and perhaps be Doctors of the Church, where they could do what they wanted in peace and quiet without having to deal with people.

@Aaron Farnsworth

I think by the time Jesus was on the cross, his status as a man on earth cannot be described as anything but omega. How do you get to a lower place than falsely accused, tortured, and rejected by your own followers?

I think what saves Him from Omega status is that His followers only fled because they were afraid of being killed by the authorities -- and they likely would have been -- but they didn't want to. St. Peter felt terrible about doing it; Omega status would require Peter walking away, glad not to be hitched to someone who turned out to be an utter loser. And even then, St. John and His Mother came by to stay with Him by the Cross.

I do understand the points you're making. It's not a bad essay, and I particularly like the second parts of each of your sections, where you give your advice for each of the ranks. (Although I would point out that a "humbled" Gamma would technically be a low Delta or a high Omega and no longer a Gamma.)

I agree that in some aspects He is Sigma, but I always had the impression that if a man has both Alpha and Sigma traits, he is Alpha (cf. Trump).

Enjoyed the article. Found the link between redeemed gamma and Jesus Secret King interesting. Is there such a thing as a gamma man? Rather than gamma being a damaged male who needs to mature out of gamma to be a man.

I disagree with the placement of sigma in the priestly role. Priests are integrated into the community. I think beta better fits as priest; they are to faithfully follow alpha God's commands and lead the community into the proper form of worship. Not much room for putting their own personal touch on things.

I think the sigma best fits the prophet role. John the Baptist, Elijah - outside society, still attracting followers, facing and convicting all - even alpha kings - with the truth and judgement of God.

On the discussion about Paul being alpha, I thought of him more sigma - not part of the 12, going from city to city, ministering at his own expense to not be beholden to any. My impression is that other early church leaders like Peter/James stayed put, so they were leaders tied to a community in a way Paul was not.

@Aaron FarnsworthThat's right, I think it is in line with reality that a delta man should become a godly delta man when he becomes a Christian, and should not be expected to change his personality to beta or any other rank that may seem more desirable.

That's not what I was referring to when I was talking about "is" and "ought". You missed my point, which was that since both the article and my response was about how men ought to be, trying to rebut my point with 'that doesn't reflect reality' is comparing apples to oranges.

I gave reasonings, weak as it may be, why my current theory is that the Voxian Beta is closest to what men "ought" to be as described by the Bible. Your only reasoning given that I could see was that you "haven't observed that it is desirable they should do so." It is therefore weak and even insulting when you chalk up my argument to changing his personality to "any other rank that may seem more desirable."

Why do you believe what you believe? How are you sure you are not the one guilty of clinging to what you see as more desirable instead of what is the most correct as by your reckoning?

You could not possibly be more wrong about Paul, my friend. Both scriptures you mentioned are pure alpha. Even when Paul is being humble, he has to be the MOST humble. The alpha male oozes out of every story of him in Acts and through every letter in which he refers to himself. His description of his own conversion in Galatians and his description of his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11 are perfect examples.

There are three problems.

First, the point of contention you brought up was if he was more Beta or not after conversion. Not whether he had completely switched socio-sexual ranks.

Second, your explanation of Paul being so Alpha he has to be the "MOST humble" doesn't explain 1 Corinthians 15:9, which I had already mentioned.

Third, you're suggesting that Paul is somehow not actually being humble, but humble-bragging, that Alpha version of claiming humble. There are roughly three different ways of interpreting it when someone says they are humble - the Alpha way, the Gamma way, and the way of them actually telling the truth.

Alpha way - "I am so super humble, look at how humble I am! Look at me! I'm so humble that I prefer to drive my $50,000 car around town instead of any of my $2 million supercars!" And it may or may not be the earnest truth, but it's still a display of social status.

Gamma way - "I am so super humble, I can't believe everyone else isn't! Everyone else who aren't as humble as I am are just super jerks and beneath me. By sole virtue of me being humble, I am great!" It's an attempt to change his social status by tearing down everyone else.

Actually telling the truth - "I really feel horrible about the bad things I've done. I don't deserve the nice things that were given to me." It's not about social status whatsoever.

Paul does not consistently assert his social status. He is bold for sure, but his abasement in Christ clearly makes him not so proud in his own status, even in 2 Corinthians 11.

Related but almost an aside, as a question to Vox or anyone else, how often is it for Alphas to make digs at themselves? Because Paul does it at the very beginning of 2 Corinthians 11.

Just because Jesus was fully man, doesn't mean he exhibited all the characteristics of all men. He didn't have one blue eye and one brown. Because he is also fully God, as well as the king and leader of Israel he does show a distinctly alpha characteristic.

This theory above is akin to saying that there are only two types of people, extrovert and introvert and looking through the gospels to find incidents that display Jesus being both."

Hmmm... I thank GOD this kind of discussion has been brought here on Alpha Game... Really been wanting to comment on this kind of subject.

Really like and appreciate everyone's contributions. There's a lot of good information and insights in these comments.

That said, I definitely have to agree with Orville on his analysis.

Why is it that we have to "pigeon-hole" the Lord Jesus Christ into one socio-sexual rank over another? Some say He's just "Alpha"; some saying He's just "Sigma" and so forth...

Does GOD ALMIGHTY, the LORD JESUS CHRIST have to be "constrained" by human limitations of human personality? Such as does God Almighty in the flesh have to be solely an "extravert" or an "introvert"?

I always thought of Jesus as being a completely autonomous Individual Who could be simultaneously perfect extravert and introvert. Meaning He is Life of the Party (extravert) and at the same time He can live in the desert alone forty (40) days by Himself (introvert) without feeling "lonely" away from people. Why not? Let's remember that JESUS being GOD in human form is NOT LIMITED by the limitations we earthly men have to deal with. It's truly fascinating when we think of it.

Lord Jesus Christ is PERFECT in EVERY WAY with NO WEAKNESSES of any of the socio-sexual ranks of men as defined.

Because Christ is PERFECT, He is SOCIALLY PERFECT as PURE (HOLY) ALPHA. No wonder why literally ALL THE PEOPLE gravitate towards Him or at least want to see or know of Him...

Also, because GOD is "Mysterious" to us human-beings who cannot comprehend Him, Jesus is seen as "Sigma" in FUNCTION when He "distances" Himself from the world traveling off into the wilderness, where people may not find or see Him.

This pattern of Christ is evident in our own lives when sometimes we feel as though God is "hidden away" from us human-beings and we can't seem to get a "sign" or acknowledgement from God. Like how the people of Israel though God forsake them throughout the middle portion of the Bible in the Old Testament. God will sometimes "disappear" and then "reappear" in our lives so as to TEST OUR FAITH and guide our GROWTH in HIS SPIRIT...

Rather brethren (for those who are fellow Christians), God is PERFECT! God Almighty, Lord Jesus Christ is THE PERFECT MAN: as He calls Himself the ALPHA and the OMEGA: the Beginning and the End.

Lord Jesus Christ is ALPHA of ALPHA. Christ in His actions on earth may have been the distinctive of "Sigma" in FUNCTIONS but CHRIST HIMSELF is PERFECT ALPHA. Christ is the PURE, PEFECT ALPHA; not reliant on any external factors of validations of human social connections and social power.

Remember, "Sigma" itself is a lower, LESS DOMINANT FORM of "Alpha" introverted variant as Vox has said in times past. ALPHA is TOP.

The distinction of Christ being "compared" by this carnal human socio-sexual hierarchy of MAN is that it is FALLEN UNDER THE CURSE OF SIN. Christ is the PERFECT ALPHA.

Lord Jesus Christ is ONLY "Beta" in His Relationship to HIS *FATHER*, FATHER GOD; but CHRIST IS ALPHA OF ALL.

Just like how every man is "beta" in relation to his (social) status in being in the presence of his father; by that VERY PRINCIPLE is only why Christ can be "seen" as "Beta"; to GOD THE FATHER; and He Alone. Christ is NOT Beta at all but to HIS FATHER GOD. CHRIST is THE ALPHA. Amen.

We must remember that CHRIST is the Manifested Appearance of GOD the FATHER in the FLESH of human form, since God the Father Himself is SPIRIT and not a Physical Manifestation we can see, measure or even comprehend by our finite little human minds. Amen.

I agree with the assertions of @SirHamster that "beta" is the more fit to be placed in the "priestly role" while the "Sigma" is more fit as the "prophet role" as "John the Baptist" and "Elijah" are both Sigma men who are prophets of God. Amen.

Also, on the discussion of the apostle Paul's socio-sexual ranking... Hmmm... yeah, I would have to agree with SirHamster as well that elder brother Paul was a Sigma man with very defined alpha characteristics.

Because Paul is still just a "man" he is subject to this human male socio-sexual hierarchy so, given I think the apostle Paul to be of an "introverted personality type"; of the sixteen Myer Briggs Personality Types, I type Paul an "INTP Sigma man"; not an Alpha. Paul would have to be an EXTRAVERT to be classified as Alpha.

Alpha by definition is EXTRAVERT. There are NO "introverted Alphas" in real life. The "introverted alphas" would be the introverted Alpha variant SIGMAS.

(P.S. Since, the apostle Peter was the "leader of men" among Christ's apostles and one of the main leaders if not the main leader of the original Early Church establishment; The apostle Peter was an "ESTP" personality type I think as I remember reading from a personality type article.

Despite Peter's personal shortcomings and flaws as we know it; Peter was the one who usually TOOK CHARGE among the disciples. When Christ asked His disciples who they thought the Son of Man was, ONLY PETER dared to call Jesus, CHRIST, the Son of the Living God.

When Jesus forewarned His disciples of His Crucifixion ONLY PETER did his best to persuade Jesus against being crucified, leading Peter to be rebuked by Jesus calling him "Satan".

When at the Last Supper, and Jesus tells His disciples one of them will betray Him, only PETER really steps up and instigates trying to really find out who would betray Jesus. Going so far as to get John (the one Jesus loved) to indirectly ask Jesus directly who would betray Him with John leaning on the chest of Jesus to ask Him.

Also, when out in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was about to let Himself be taken prisoner by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Sandhedrin, only PETER went so far as to take a sword and cut off the ear of one of the guards coming to take Jesus away. Peter always LEAD BY HIS ACTIONS regardless of the "outcome".

So when Peter rejected Christ three times as Jesus told him earlier, Peter was grieved and sad he failed at that too. But the thing is, PETER is the one who even PUT HIMSELF IN THE PLACE to FAIL rather than "AVOID FAILING". Get that?

After Peter failed to stand by Jesus those three times, Peter didn't go and say "screw this" and completely ditch Jesus but Peter, STAYED AROUND and still pursued to follow up closely to Jesus, even to His Crucifixion.

In that sense, Peter PASSED THE TEST than all the other 10 disciples (besides John) who completely ditched Jesus until they saw Him Resurrected.

Though Peter often screwed up in his attempts to do the right thing, it was PETER who really LEAD THE GROUP when Jesus wasn't around as Leader. Sounds pretty alpha to me. Why is it then that Jesus gave PETER the keys to Heaven and Earth to bind the things on heaven and earth? It's because Jesus entrusted PETER with the LEADERSHIP to take the Scene after He would ascend back to His Father. Jesus entrusted PETER to BUILD His CHURCH in the beginning.

Thus, that's why I see the apostle Peter as the ESTP personality type Alpha in the beginning of (KJV) Acts when it mainly talked about Peter and John in the beginning before Paul showed on the scene. It was PETER who was the main leader of the Early Church after Christ ascended into Heaven.

The apostle Paul, I never "sensed" as innately "alpha" because I thought of him as a little "disconnected" from the real social hierarchy of the Early Church as he mostly *wandered* as a missionary traveling place-to-place planting churches and visiting them. Something a SIGMA would do, not an ALPHA.

An alpha (like the apostle Peter), would normally STAY PUT in his own territory and build up his own turf; like how Peter always "stayed with the Jews" and usually kept himself at a distance from mingling with the Gentiles besides for social niceties.

A Sigma would be more autonomous and open to various social groups and experiences as Paul demonstrated in his life in Christ. Amen.)

I have in mind a little story about the Omega aspect of Jesus exactly as expressed here, which explains the necessity of the crucifixion as the method of mankind's redemption. Might even have to write it down, we'll see.

Great White Tatanka. Thunderbird. Mystery Cat. One unto like a Son of Man, very shiny.Talk to Elijah, or Ekekial, or those that keep the recognition. Humans are proxies for the narrative.

Wheels within wheels. Even gods bend to the real thing. Probably best understood when hard to kill.

I think being half human and half the other stuff will probably shake up even the buried deep stuff. Of course, that is just a bunch of premodern cognition. The damned War started like geometry. Arguments about curves and waves, I think. The Cross in the Center is hard, and easy. Like a wormhole that goes to Valhalla, and shakes the Heavens.

Or course, being a proxy is not so bad. The reality is terrifying. Best to talk around it.

It bears mentioning that I think Gamma and Omega are pathological conditions, and not true male hierarchy positions. If this is true, then these boxes only exist because there are so many men who spill out of the proper ones.

The problem with the Gamma section is just the amount of lying to the self that they have to do. This is in no way compatible with Christianity and God, who hates liars. And when the Gamma finally stops lying to himself, aka "to embrace the humility of his low status in the flesh", they stop being Gamma.

On the contrary, they've been called sons of God. Talk about secret kings! A Gamma's job is to cast his crown before the throne in the semblance of Jesus.

@Aeoli PeraOn the contrary, they've been called sons of God. Talk about secret kings! A Gamma's job is to cast his crown before the throne in the semblance of Jesus.

If he manages that, then he wouldn't be Gamma anymore. The moment he realizes he must cast his Secret Burger King Crown before the throne, he's already put one foot in Delta. Then it's just trying to excise the Gamma habits that put himself first before God. There's zero "end state" for Gammas because they are at their core liars, and cleansed from that lie they are low Deltas.

That's why this whole "redeemed Gamma" thing is just off the rails.

@Jed MaskWhy is it that we have to "pigeon-hole" the Lord Jesus Christ into one socio-sexual rank over another? Some say He's just "Alpha"; some saying He's just "Sigma" and so forth...

People were just guessing, they weren't trying to pigeon-hole

Just like how every man is "beta" in relation to his (social) status in being in the presence of his father; by that VERY PRINCIPLE is only why Christ can be "seen" as "Beta"; to GOD THE FATHER; and He Alone. Christ is NOT Beta at all but to HIS FATHER GOD. CHRIST is THE ALPHA. Amen.

I'm going to stop you right there. Are you sure you know the difference between Alpha and Beta as is defined by this site? You appear to be conflating them with Heartiste's model.

If he manages that, then he wouldn't be Gamma anymore. The moment he realizes he must cast his Secret Burger King Crown before the throne, he's already put one foot in Delta. Then it's just trying to excise the Gamma habits that put himself first before God. There's zero "end state" for Gammas because they are at their core liars, and cleansed from that lie they are low Deltas.

Don't forget that I said Gamma is probably pathological (i.e. pathological dishonesty). But the best lies work because they pervert deep truths. Think about this mental process: "If you knew who and what I am, you'd treat me with respect." There is a profound sense of value hidden behind the egoistic interpretation.

Jesus was Alpha.Created the world - not because He had to, but because He is love and love must be shared with others. Not a sigma, He didn't go into the wilderness for 40 days to get away from others, He was driven by the Holy Spirit there to spend 40 days in fasting and prayer. He wasn't alone at all, He was talking with God.He was alpha in Joshua 5:13-15, as commander of the Lord's army. Leading the army of God when He returns, on a white horse no less. Alpha at the money changers in the temple.Alpha by sending out his 70 (not 12) disciples to preach and perform miracles.Alpha by refusing to answer Pilate and Herod despite pain and death threats, because it wasn't His mission.Alpha leading the procession on the donkey.

It is not beta to submit to the will of God the Father. Especially when He and God agreed before the world was even created that this was the backup plan in case Adam sinned.

Alpha by the reaction of His enemies. By His followers, women and men and children. By His impact on the world and history. By His absolute refusal to submit in word or thought or deed to the supernatural Power of Satan, the Prince of this world, in His 33+ years of life here. He even had fish submit to His will, and the weather. The elements (water into wine). And death. He conquered fear forever for us, too.

And look at the reaction of the gamma Judas Iscariot, who just couldn't submit to the alpha and had to betray Him.

Jesus the MGTOW. Jesus came to do his fathers bidding and didn't care about what society demanded of him. Paul would later say it's better you were like me... Of course I do not consider anyone a fool who wishes to rebuild the western culture. If I lived in that day I would have worked to defend the Roman Empire. But let us not look down nor belittle people like Nikola Tesla for their choices in life.

Well, the first step follows naturally. There is no distinction except that we were paid for. So, how is a Gamma different from say, a Sigma? Nothing important. Saying that one sort or the other is sinful is redundant. Saying that one or the other is more sinful is like saying a blind man is more sinful than one who can see.

@Aeoli PeraWell, the first step follows naturally. There is no distinction except that we were paid for. So, how is a Gamma different from say, a Sigma? Nothing important.

See, that's the premise which I don't agree with. Practically by definition, a Gamma is a man who lies to himself about almost everything. The more Gamma they are, the more they are trapped in that delusion. A lie is at the core of their being, so when that lie is carved out so is their being. The Gamma, and possibly the Omega, will naturally be lifted out of the rank the more Christlike they are.

As far as I can tell, this is not anywhere near the same thing when it happens for the Delta, the Beta, the Alpha and the Sigma.

This entire expose smacks of trying to force-fit Jesus into a framework of human understanding. Ultimately, this is humanism trying to exert itself onto Jesus.

FAIL!

It lacks completely any spiritual understanding as discernment, judging Christ only by outward appearances and recorded experiences. The Gospels written by Paul explain what Christ was ACTUALLY accomplishing, but this expose doesn't take any of those things into account.

It appears that the author was trying to find a way to say that Christ can relate to all men a la Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." But shoving Jesus into the GAME framework just doesn't work. It's like trying to explain God within the framework of time. He exists apart from time, just as Jesus transcends manhood.

I'd love to get into a full discourse on that, but I doubt this is the Forum for that discussion.